NOM BLOG

Bishop Evans on "Our Baptismal Call to Defend Marriage"

 

Bishop Evans is the auxiliary bishop of Providence, RI. This is his sermon from last Sunday:

I submit that today, in the State of Rhode Island, we are faced with a challenge to our baptismal promises to renounce the modern day evil works of Satan and confess our belief in Christ and His holy Catholic Church. On the day of our baptism, we chose whose side we are on. The question we must now ask ourselves is: Are we still on God’s side? And if we are, how will we prove it?

This challenge takes the form of an attempt to grant to same sex couples that recognition reserved for the oldest and the only institution God created in His own image: Man as male and female united in marriage. The essence of marriage in God’s plan is a union of one male and one female, who are so physically, emotionally, psychologically and religiously complementary that each completes the other in such a way that without the other each is incomplete. For this reason, it is a vocation, a call from God to the persons concerned as to how they are to live their lives and win their salvation.

Read the entire sermon.

45 Comments

  1. Alicia
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    The Church hasn't got the right to imposte their views on the rest of us, and take away rights from others. If Bishop Evans does not want to perform gay marriages that's fine by me, but someone should explain to him the separation of church and state. Bishop Evans also forgets 1) that marriages are not originally a religious institution and that 2) given that some marriages are performed by the state, and not the church, those opposing gay marriage must still come up with arguments against banning gay marriage that hold a chance of going somewhere in courts.

    An appeal to God and to tradition, or to a so-called "essence of marriage" (which he conveniently fails to define) do not constitute such arguments, and do not justify the status quo.

  2. Don
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Alicia:

    Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah! All you ever do is make a bunch of angry noise without the slightest substance. Hey, Alicia, your Mom is calling you, LOL!

  3. Mary Ann
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Alicia,
    If people in the Church dont have the right to voice their views on marriage, please explain if and why you do?
    Are you in some sort of supreme or special status over your fellow citizens who are religious?

  4. Kyle
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    I think the church can certainly voice its opinion. It really just serves to show how bigoted Christians have become. Religion's a business and every business has the right to promote itself. Unfortunately, religious bigotry serves to rationalize everyone else's bigotry, an intention I believe religious people are happy about.

  5. Mary Ann
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    Kyle,
    Were the African American voters in CA, who overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, also bigots?
    Please explain.
    Honestly, the charge of bigotry is wearing thin. Some folks, from all walks of life, are bigots and own it. But to say that the majority of voters in CA, not to mention dozens of other states, are all bigots? That's pretty implausible!

    More and more people aren't letting themselves be kept silent in fear of a false label. I know my heart,
    Kyle, and I have no hate for you or any supporter of SSM. Have a great day!

  6. Don
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Kyle wrote: " It really just serves to show how bigoted Christians have become."

    Oh, you mean instead of being like homosexuals who are not bigoted at all.

    "In 2006, there were reports of verbal attacks on gay Latinos by gay whites in The Castro district of San Francisco. John Mendoza, a protest organizer against racism in the Castro, said he was told by a gay white male to "go back to Mexico, you (expletive deleted) wetback, where you belong".

  7. James G in Philly
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    This Bishop has every right to say that gay people can't get a religious marriage done by his church. That is his right. Of course, we are talking aobut a civil contract, where the church is not even needed to execute said contract! If everyone who got married needed to speak to a religious figure before and during the ceremony, then I would have no issue with this Bishop or any other religious figure speaking against "gay marriage". Rather, gay people don't want to get "gay married,' they just want to get married. To commit themselve, IN THE EYES OF THE STATE, to each other for the benefit of each other. Thats what a marriage is! It does not involve children, as there are many couples that get married that choose not to have children or who can't have them! If people serving life sentences with no chance of a congjual visit, then I see no issue with allowing two people of the same sex, espically after many of these couples have been together then Britney Spears and her first husband.... Or does her marriage count because it lasted for 55 hours and could have produced a child in that time.... Oh, she couldn't have a baby that quick, but her marriage is still valid! Well, my husband and I have been together for seven years and not one of you has ever asked me to stop harming you or your marriage. Go figure! Yes, the Bishop has a right to speak, just as I and my husband have a right to be married: The Seperation of Church and State! If you can name me one religion that is the state religion, then I will back down, until then... I'm waiting...

  8. David
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    This Bishop is interfering in a political process where he has no business at all. The US Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state. He is not an elected member of the political machine and is indeed beholden and avowed to uphold the Vatican State and religious law, not civil law. He may do whatever he likes with his congregation, however, his edict doesn't pass the legal smell test. It stinks of ecumenical non-sense.

  9. Augusto
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    @ Mary Ann - All things considered, the majority of voters in California was a fairly thin margin given CA's population.

    And of course people are entitled to every bigoted opinion they want - but trying to manipulate the political process by regious dictate and dogma is not ok - They are tax exempt because they are supposed to be non-pollitical...and there is the pesky matter of that 1st Amendment thing of separation of church and state.

    Why should your religion dictate my civil rights? Right, it shouldn't. Just like my religious beliefs should not dictate your civil rights.

  10. TC Matthews
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    "This Bishop is interfering in a political process where he has no business at all."

    The governance of the governed is everyone's business. Just because he's religious doesn't mean he's excluded from participating and having a voice in the discussion.

  11. Don
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Augusto wrote: "All things considered, the majority of voters in California was a fairly thin margin given CA's population."

    ROFL! Right up until the vote results came in, homosexuals were crowing about the "huge" predicted victory of a 52% to 48% defeat. As soon as Prop 8 was found to have PASSED by that margin instead, the margin suddenly became "thin". Spin much, LOL!

    Augusto wrote: "And of course people are entitled to every bigoted opinion they want..."

    Oh, you mean bigoted like this?

    "It is sad to me, as a born U.S. citizen and gay Latino man, that because of my skin color and size I am a target of hate and racism," said Mendoza. "In a community that right now is fighting for equal rights and gay marriage, this type of hate and outright racism is alive and well."

    http://racerelations.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php%3Fsec=news%26article=772

  12. David
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Oh, you mean bigoted like this?

    "It is sad to me, as a born U.S. citizen and gay Latino man, that because of my skin color and size I am a target of hate and racism," said Mendoza. "In a community that right now is fighting for equal rights and gay marriage, this type of hate and outright racism is alive and well."

    Yes, everyone has a right to their own bigoted opionion, but the government DOES NOT HAVE the right to be bigoted and opionated. The government must treat every citizen equally under the law See Amendment 14 of the Constitution. If you don't know the difference, I suggest you go back to 7th grade history and re-read your Constitution.

  13. ConservativeNY
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    Please show me where in the US Constitution that gay marriage or the seperation of church and state are mentioned.

  14. Don
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    David wrote: "The government must treat every citizen equally under the law See Amendment 14 of the Constitution."

    Oh, you mean they have to treat everyone equally like this?

    "Gays Now a Protected Class under New Law"

    "WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama has signed legislation that elevates homosexuals to the class of citizens that enjoy special protections under the law."

    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/October/Gays-Now-a-Protected-Class-of-People-under-New-Law/

  15. L. Marie
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    haha. Oh snap. gotcha there.

  16. Mary Ann
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    I'm with NY. Please show me where SSM and separation of church and state are mentioned in the Constitution.

    Also, not one SSM supporter has addressed the charge of bigotry against African Americans in CA (not to mention marriage supporters in other states) who voted for Prop 8. Are these voters bigots, or not? If not, what other motivation could they have had to support marriage? Let's explore this!

  17. Clark
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Mary Ann,

    Yes, bigots can be black. Those who voted for Prop 8 were bigots driven by animus toward gays and lesbians.

  18. L. Marie
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    LOL Clark! Nice for you to get out that crystal ball for us, but I can one up you there. I could have guessed you'd have said that about us even before you posted your answer. It's so clear, anyone who disagrees with you must hate you. Amazing.

    "Does not play well with others." I knew kids like that in elementary school, but they all grew out of it. Come on, buck up! If people disagree with you, it's because they don't like your IDEAS, it has nothing to do with you, just like who you ARE isn't what you DO.

  19. ConservativeNY
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    No, the blacks who voter for Prop 8 are not bigots. They were just not burdened by white guilt. So they are not as susceptable to the notion that family values and racism are moral twins.

    Thus, they are not as easily manipulated, I fear.

  20. Mary Ann
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Clark, so everyone who voted for prop 8 was motivated by personal animus? That's about seven million hateful voters in a progressive, blue state like CA. Does that seem plausible to you?

    NY, I also fear that too many whites are manipulated into thinking they're bigots. But I also think that's changing, that more and more people are getting strong and realizing they can support marriage and kids needing a Mom and a Dad, and simply disagree with SSM supporters. At least, that's what voting trends show.
    Guess you can only cry wolf with the false charge of 'bigot!' so many times.

  21. Alicia
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    Mary Ann: we don't live in a theocracy. Which basically means that while religious people certainly have the right to voice their views and concerns, they don't have the right to deny or take away the right of others without some serious reasons to do so. No convincing argument has been brought forth about precisely WHY gay marriage should be banned: at this point the anti-gay lobby is being irrational in their decision to deny or take away rights from the LGBT community which is why we call them bigots. They are driven by the nose by their religious ideology, and there is no valid reason why we should simply sit down and watch them hurt our families, our kids, our relationships. The LGBT community is just as pro family and pro kids as you are, Mary Ann.

  22. Alicia
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

    LGBT individuals are benefiting from special protection because of people who discriminate against them. As the article clearly mentions, they are not the only group benefitting from this special kind of protection either. We do not ask to be treated in any particular way: we ask only for respect and our civil rights. Given that gays and lesbians remain the minority most targeted by hate crimes certainly it is not unreasonable to ask for some kind of protection from hate, homophobia and discrimination.

    Stop discriminating against us and such protection will not be needed. Unfortunately, too many times freedom of religion means freedom to hate.

    And perhaps Christians should step back a little, and realize that their religion's teachings on homosexuality, a lot of it as reported by their leaders based on lies and misrepresentation of modern scientific researches, promotes intolerance and has real adverse consequences for real individuals, their children (yes, gays and lesbians have children and raise families), their families and their friends.

  23. Mary Ann
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    Alicia, if SSM supporters love children as much as marriage supporters, then why would they be ok with denying children a mother or a father?
    Two women can't give children their own father.
    Two men can't give children their own mother.
    I don't hate people living the gay lifestyle, but I don't think its fair to redefine marriage in a way that purposely denies children a mother or a father.
    I am aware this is already being done by adults in domestic situations, I just think it's cruel.

  24. Alicia
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

    Mary Ann: "I don't hate people living the gay lifestyle, but I don't think its fair to redefine marriage in a way that purposely denies children a mother or a father."

    1- Gays and lesbians are not redefining marriage. Gays and lesbians who marry will be expected to do so on the same principles under which straight people will marry. Our marriages, at the end of the day, will not be all that different from yours.
    2- We're not denying children anything since children in gay families do just as well as those in straight ones. There is nothing cruel for children living in gay families.

  25. Mary Ann
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:35 am | Permalink

    Alicia,
    When a father leaves the family or a mother dies with cancer, or whatever the sad circumstance that children are separated from their biological parents, this leaves a hole in the hearts of children that never fully goes away.
    Why would you deliberately set things up like that by not allowing a child a mother and father?

    Will you understand the hurt and/or rage of adults who never got to know their bio dad or mom? Or will you still insist that they were never denied an important relationship?

    You can give them lots of love and lots of things, Alicia. But you cannot give children a father in the relationship you have.

  26. Autumn
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    @Mary Ann: If it is so detrimental for a child to be raised without a father or mother, do you support the removal of children from widowed mothers and fathers? Do you support abused or neglected children remaining in abusive two-parent households, lest they possibly be given into the care of grandparents, a loving single relative or a stable foster home? Children need love and care, regardless of familial source. This argument has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and is only a diversion from the larger issue.

    To return to the issue at hand, Bishop Evans has a right to a personal opinion based on his religious convictions. However, he is NOT allowed, in good conscience, to use his religious authority to influence political affairs. If he wants to be a political voice, he can enter the public arena *as soon as he pays taxes like any other public citizen.* As a Catholic, I find this misuse of power embarrassing and harmful.

  27. frank
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Why are so many "religious people" so bigoted?
    The church needs to attend to its own affairs. Marriage equality is a civil human rights issue and I would never ask the bishop or any one of his clergy to marry me. Do not try to impose your canon law or religious ideas on the rest of us.

  28. TC Matthews
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Frank,

    Do you mean to say "Why are so many religious people disagreeing with me?" People will always disagree with you. They even disagree with me sometimes. It happens.

  29. Mary Ann
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    Autumn, the situations you bring up are real and have been happening since families were formed. There will always be unavoidable tragedies and parental abuse and neglect (gays, too!).
    So there are intentional and unintentional ways children can be separated from their true parents. All these ways leave a real hole in a child's heart.

    With SSM, children are separated from both true parents by design, on purpose. It's not hard to understand why people object to SSM on this basis.

  30. Michael Mohajer
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    Oh please, I didnt think people talked like this anymore. Christians just believe whatever they want, its unbelievable. They dont open their minds, look around them. They only see and hear what they want.

  31. DavidKCMO
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    MM,

    It helps them retain their perception of self as they wish it to be, rather than what it is. Emotional dyslexia is a derogatory term for it. Much like an acronym they take the information reality provides and then they manipulate the qualitative values of the concepts and scenarios as a way to cut the strings off their fingers. Picture a delusional Napoleon complex.

  32. DavidKCMO
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    MaryAnn,

    The only reason you say homosexual headed households leave a hole in a kids heart is because you want it to so you're not proven a bigot/homophobe. How can something that was never there in the first place cause a hole when it's removed? Your statement gripes to not a single fact. Plus, adoptions do the same thing. Do you want to tell an adult adopted as an infant s/he should feel a hole? Would that make you feel better too? You people in here totally disregard all factual evidence.

  33. Mary Ann
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    What do you mean people don't talk like this anymore? Know any kids? They love having the relationships of mother and father, and miss that relationship if it's broken through tragedy or human weakness, broken promises, etc.
    Adoption is a good fix for many situations, but most kids still wonder when they are old enough. Replacing their bio mom and dad with loving adoptive mom and dad is the best thing that can be done under the circumstances.
    Having a mom and dad matter to kids. Do you really think two women or two men can offer the same thing? Yes, especially two women (mother/ daughter, mother/sister, etc.) raise kids out of necessity, but no one acknowledges it as ideal to have a deadbeat dad or a deceased dad, etc. Whether the child knows their father for a time or he leaves the family after some years, children still feel that loss.

    And no one calls such (mostly loving) family relationships marriage.

    I can't believe that in this day and age, when we know more and more the damage done by absent fathers (or mothers, though less frequent) I'd still have to explain this to y'all.

    Maybe you don't see the obvious importance of moms and dads because you don't want to? It's easier to hide behind the flimsy and crumbling shield of "everyone's a bigot!", I guess.

  34. DavidKCMO
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    Maryann,

    Ladies and gentlemen, here we have classic projection.

    Your romantic, yet simultaneously hateful, attachment to and use of standardizing heterosexual parenting as a tool to personally and socially degrade homosexuals is astounding. If after communicating these sentiments you have yet to comprehend your own uneducated assertions and reevaluate your thoughts, you are truly a bigot and discriminator. Disagree and you're a liar to yourself as well as others. Not because I said so, but because that's how logic and human psychology works.

  35. Raynd
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 12:41 am | Permalink

    "No, the blacks who voter for Prop 8 are not bigots. They were just not burdened by white guilt. So they are not as susceptable to the notion that family values and racism are moral twins."

    Excellent point and well said. You're probably right there on the white guilt. Funny how people can actually twist family, children and the good of society into looking like all evil. Calling good evil and evil good never seemed so prophetic.

  36. Raynd
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 12:44 am | Permalink

    "Disagree and you're a liar to yourself as well as others. "

    DavidKCMO, you're a racist and a bigot. I've followed these threads for some time and I've seen what you do to people of color who support marriage. It's a shame. Not only do you single out people of color, but also women. It's sick.

    If you want to make an argument, make it. Don't sit back and spew your vitriolic hate for others. If your ideas are worth merit, treat them and others with respect. It'll get you much further. As it is, I honestly can't stand reading your posts. You oughtn't try to bully people out of the discussion like that.

  37. Mary Ann
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    Have we really gotten to the absurdity of celebrating and valuing the roles of mother and father = hateful, degrading, and astounding?
    Still no coherent argument about why SSM is a good thing, and why we should ditch mother and father relationships. Just homosexualist bullying.

  38. DavidKCMO
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 2:31 am | Permalink

    Maryann,

    Why do you repeatedly employ MM's phrasing?

    Raynd,

    You continue to lie to yourself and others regarding my inferences proving your choice to fiat, or fein, an ability to empathize. You clearly have no clue what my "Uncle Tom," "Jim Crow," etc references did. If Andrew were honest, as it's very difficult to find any African-American unfamiliar with the historical, legal and personal connection to the effects left on the African -American experience in the states, he would inform you of the deceptive, tratorious, seclusionary nature of them. Its not my fault your deductive reasoning skills are used in reverse for the purposes of this discussion. Maybe it is true that you are only capable of seeing only Caucasian individuals as those with racist views. I would bet you're Caucasian and think you defended Andrew from a racist Caucasian and therefore feel a more profound unity with Andrew in as much s not being a bridge builder through commonality but a stone thrower in ignorance.

    Homophobia is a concept misnamed. It's a function of misoyny-hatred of anything that is or perceived to be female by displaying perceived feminine characteristics or traits. The same subordination from the same source for the same reason directed to the same threat(s) from a single or multiple sources to the security of the misogynist(s) or misogynistic group. How could any woma(e)n not be appalled by any representation of misogyny is only answered by said woma(e)n's ignorance or complacency due to fear of safety.

    How does that relate to referring to Andrew as "Uncle Tom" or "Jim Crow?" Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination, as any member of a minority will be usually and aptly able to explain in minute detail.

    That a member of a minority group, such as Andrew or any woman, could conscionably tread on the backs of another member of another minority for scientifically unfounded reasons, that are proven to be based on lies, is deffinately worth pointing out.

    I probably didn't do as good or thorough job at clarifying that for you, did I, Raynd. If you need to stick to your assertion of me being racist to satistfy the need in yourself to have a familiar adversary or opponent, well, then you just go ahead and continue that dalliance if you need to. I would like to remind you that you really have no idea what my skin color is do you? I do know something about you though. That you are more comfortable discussing what is wrong about your opponent or contestor's argument points/contributions ,as well as your own teammate, on the basis of what their skin color is. What was that you were saying about white guilt again? Doesn't matter. You have clearly had enough time to lie to yourself to have successfully convinced yourself to reality's contrary.

  39. Raynd
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    "Still no coherent argument about why SSM is a good thing, and why we should ditch mother and father relationships. Just homosexualist bullying."

    Exactly. Where is the argument David? Where are your well thought out points?

    DavidDKCMO--- You have illustrated my point crudely, but effectively. You are indeed a racist.

  40. Raynd
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    "If Andrew were honest..."

    Did you mean to say, "If Andrew agreed with me....."?

  41. DavidKCMO
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Raynd,

    Have you no reading comprehension skills as well?

    Again, the point of my previous statements regarding Andrew, Jum Crow and Uncle Tom is:

    "How does that relate to referring to Andrew as "Uncle Tom" or "Jim Crow?" Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination, as any member of a minority will be usually and aptly able to explain in minute detail.

    That a member of a minority group, such as Andrew or any woman, could conscionably tread on the backs of another member of another minority for scientifically unfounded reasons, that are proven to be based on lies, is deffinately worth pointing out"

    Are you still lost. Both paragraphs are crystal clear for all. If you still see a racist, then I can only assert you, without a doubt, choose not to see what is sitting on your nose, like a three year old putting on sunglasses because s/he thinks because there's a barrier the other party can't see him/her. This is shame at its best representation. How is that, "I can't see you, I can't see you," working for you?

  42. Posted January 13, 2011 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    David KCMO your posts are ridiculous. Anyone who disagrees with you is a homophobe. Anyone who disagrees with you who is black is an "Uncle Tom" or a "Jim Crow", and anyone who disagrees with you who is a woman is also targeted?

    I'm a woman. I'm calling you out. Shame on you. Come to the ideas rationally, set aside the name calling. It just makes you look bad.

  43. Mary Ann
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    David,
    I don't know who MM is.
    Your writing is so verbose and awkward as to be like a buzz word salad, devoid of any substance.
    Still haven't heard your argument as to why it's ok for children if relationships of mother and father are lessened or denied them by adults- on purpose.
    Maybe when you stop finding 'bigots under every rock' you can concentrate on that.

  44. Regan DuCasse
    Posted January 14, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    "Anyone, anything...everyone.." So much hyperbole it's dizzying!
    If gay people are included in marriage, then 'anything and any kind' or marriage will ensue.
    If someone objects, 'anyone is a bigot'.

    I want some honesty here. Some real truthful and SPECIFIC truth that's not speaking from religious conviction. Religious belief and conviction is fluid and of absolute choice. Using that to debate the legitimacy of ONE sexual orientation as a choice, in and of itself is wrongful and arrogant and hypocritical.

    Using that as a platform and rationale for discrimination, is as if the context of religious use for human rights abuse has never been done before in this country or elsewhere.
    Biological legitimacy hasn't saved women, people and people of color from human rights abuse.
    So what difference should it make?

    The point is that, even those of serious and committed religious conviction, have to agree that a human being, a person with the SAME RESPONSIBILITIES and needs as most others have, deserves to be treated with equal access, rights and protections.

    Consider this: such hostility and distrust of gay people isn't natural or inborn. It's distinct PRECISELY because it's a learned response whose root is ALSO a learned response to something not as understood in SOME ancient societies, but not all of them.
    Although homosexuality has no exception in human life or history.

    Christianity, has a long bloody history. The power of Christianity and it's influence, based on spreading the Gospel, didn't happen ALL by compassion, beneficence and charity.
    And as recently as a few decades ago, there was support of Jim Crow, exclusion of women from equal rights and obviously, anti gay discrimination fully supported by different religious groups.

    As a black woman, I can attest that those who support gay people are not comparing being gay to being black or female, but are comparing the dimensions of discrimination and the rationales to justify it.
    When the most reprobate and amoral hetero person can marry once AND AGAIN, where the most exemplary gay person cannot even serve their country openly or marry or anything ELSE, then the religious moral question is not there, but the amoral denominator of prejudice and impossibly bigoted standards.

    I want some HONESTY here. I want some serious truth.
    It does NOT have to be repeated how much so many people reject marriage equality for gay couples, or open service and so on.
    It does not have to be repeated in what way people voted or will.

    But the reasons WHY people did so, are as shameful as the reason why women were never expected or wanted to participate in voting or their own autonomy or why blacks or others of color were excluded from the same.

    What is happening with demands for popular voting on gay lives, is more of that same shameful reasoning.
    To keep gay people from their own self reliance and self determination.
    They are a minority, so there is no way to counter any votes that affect THEM ONLY and ONLY their lives!
    Before NOM said that CA voters did so 'overwhelmingly'. No, they didn't. Only by a simple majority and that was about a 4% difference.
    Now they are saying 7 million voters approved Prop. 8.
    It sounds like a lot more than a 4% difference. It's a matter of more marketing and hyperbole.
    And all the while, saying also that it's gay people who are the real bigots, who are the ones that are threatening, the ones who are trying to take away the rights of the religious.

    Oh? Really?
    Is there REALLY such a big trend going on, or are they still trotting out the same few incidents of litigation and inconvenience to a few Christians.
    Are they still claiming being 'silenced', while Maggie G and Brian Brown are all over the media being anything BUT silent?

    And as they ask for donations, are you REALLY feeling threatened or harassed by gay people at work or school?
    Or have the suicides of children from ANTI GAY epithet overshadowed your sense of persecution?

    I'm a black woman, and that big WEDGE driven between blacks and gays over their SHARED history as a LIBELED minority appalls me.
    I'm not offended in the least that gay people actually HAVE a legitimate history of being just as denied, maligned and misunderstood nearly as much as blacks, just in a different way.

    Doesn't mean that gay people DESERVED it any more than any other group having gone through such indignity and libel has.
    The more you try to rationalize denying gay people equal protection and rights, yes...the more you're in line with the worst human rights abusers our nation and other nations have known.
    And THAT is totally up to you what to choose.

  45. TC Matthews
    Posted January 14, 2011 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Regan, all you get from me is honesty. Nobody deserves to get what they want just because they want it, especially at the detriment of others. That's just the reality. You have rights, every right I have in fact, but that doesn't give you the right to demand others see the world your way.